"We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. ... Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," said the statement, which has garnered at least 375 signatures. "To look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice -- the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution -- runs counter to logic and our experience."

Among the high-profile [Republican] signers are Bill Weld, a former U.S. attorney and Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who is running against Trump as a Republican; Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush Administration; John S. Martin, a former U.S. attorney and federal judge appointed to his posts by two Republican presidents; Paul Rosenzweig, who served as senior counsel to independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; and Jeffrey Harris, who worked as the principal assistant to Rudolph W. Giuliani when he was at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

It's useful to have people step forward and tell the truth, and it's encouraging to see some Republicans take a stand against their own president. I think this is their key point:

"All of this conduct -- trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others -- is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions," the former federal prosecutors wrote in their letter.

They wrote that prosecuting such cases was "critical because unchecked obstruction -- which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished -- puts our whole system of justice at risk."

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

When Trump wanted to fire Mueller was he in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed or did he have ANY demonstrable cause outside of his own self-preservation to have Mueller removed from his legally appointed position? The answer is obvious: The only thing that Mueller had done wrong at that point in Trump's eyes was actually and competently doing the job he was hired to do by Rod Rosenstein, hence any action taken by Trump to remove Mueller or impede his investigation was against the law, full stop.